History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[ParkCungHee]

Or if you're discussing the semantics of the Hebrew language from an academic-linguistic point of view.

Also, doesn't an argument on semantics cover a good deal more than a misuse of a particular word? For example, using the same symbol (word) a few times in an argument, to cover a few different meanings in an argument and treating them all as equally true.

For example, Chesterton's objection to the claim that we live in a 'vast, cold, dark universe' is based on Semantics, in that he claims this sort of talk freely moves between three meanings:

1) The Universe is much vaster, colder and darker then the patch of earth we inhabit
2) The Universe is a vast, cold and dark universe. That is, more vast, cold and dark then other universes, and
3) The Universe is vast, cold and dark to an extent which is unpleasant.

The first is certainly true, but the people he paraphrase move freely into meanings 2 and 3 when discussing our 'cold universe' based on the evidence for meaning 1.

Or another example of an argument from Semantics is to argue that the argument has a symbol, but no substance.

I remember I once framed, with Plotinus, that omnipotence is confined by logic in these terms. You may ask "Could an Omnipotent being create a square circle?" and this sounds like a perfectly reasonable question by the rules of English grammar. But in your sentence, "Square circle" doesn't signify anything. You can't tell me the shape you are referring to as a square circle, and so the question is meaningless. It's not even a question.

So argument from Semantics is certainly more then a just the correction someone using the wrong definition of a word, it can frequently be a very complete rebuttal of an argument, and not just one on technical grounds.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Operation Downfall[/I] (the planned Allied invasion of Japan) considered necessary, and why was Japanese civilian resistance expected to cause such high casualties?

The US Army thinking seems to have been that Japan would not be defeated unless it were conquered outright; they argued that blockade would be too costly. But how exactly could it have been bloodier than an invasion, and how could a Japan stripped of its empire and totally blockaded be a threat? It seems unlikely that it could have kept sending out ships and aircraft to try to break the blockade for long without a steady supply of fuel and other resources.

Were the Army planners thinking of it being too costly in terms of Japanese civilian casualties? If that were the case, wouldn't an invasion still have been worse? And did the Japanese have enough weapons and ammunition to distribute to their civilians and make them in any way dangerous to the invading Allies?

I take it that your summary of US Army thinking is based on this and this?

The quotation from MacArthur in the latter suggests that he thought the Japanese would just wait out a blockade in the hope of negotiated surrender. The Giangreco transcript denies that Japanese civilians were starving - they were malnourished but there was enough food to keep people going.

Think of the determined resistance of the Leningraders. Remember how the Iraqis, Iranians, and Cubans have all held out against US economic pressure. The Japanese leadership and people might well have endured a state of siege for months or years, by which time there would have been enormous political presssure on Truman to 'bring our boys back home' after five or six years of war. And of course the Soviet Union would have picked up the whole of Korea and perhaps much more. It was costly for the US leadership's political capital and for that country's economic development. Japanese civilian casualties appear to have been irrelevant.

 

[Phrossack]

I take it that your summary of US Army thinking is based on this and this?

The quotation from MacArthur in the latter suggests that he thought the Japanese would just wait out a blockade in the hope of negotiated surrender. The Giangreco transcript denies that Japanese civilians were starving - they were malnourished but there was enough food to keep people going.

Think of the determined resistance of the Leningraders. Remember how the Iraqis, Iranians, and Cubans have all held out against US economic pressure. The Japanese leadership and people might well have endured a state of siege for months or years, by which time there would have been enormous political presssure on Truman to 'bring our boys back home' after five or six years of war. And of course the Soviet Union would have picked up the whole of Korea and perhaps much more. It was costly for the US leadership's political capital and for that country's economic development. Japanese civilian casualties appear to have been irrelevant.

Well, there's a difference between the US refusing to trade with you and the US actively sinking every ship and shooting down every plane that tries to go into or out of your country. But I hadn't considered Truman's considerations of a Soviet conquest of Korea and Manchuria. Those would've been pretty good motivators.

 

[r16]

Why exactly was Operation Downfall (the planned Allied invasion of Japan) considered necessary... ?

basically it would be an Army operation . The thing is Pearl Harbour wrecked the reputation of the USN kinda tremendously and Admiral King did go a long way to get a theater where the USN and its Army , the USMC , could achieve success demonstrable on a map . With every leapfrogging across the Central Pasific you could paint another coloured blob on the atlas , going hellbent to Japan . Must have hurt the conduct of the war with blocking MacArthur's operations . Something he was right about until he made it to Philippinnes , an operation done basically because he had been hounded out somewhat ingloriously in 1942 , although the captain of PT boat that took him was heavily decorated to cover the thing somewhat . Afterwards Mac Arthur like turned completely against indirect approach cause the Theater of Operations would soon be limited to Japan where he could kick the USN out and become the Supreme Supremo .

but then this is not the best part . Even Le May opposed the nuclear bombing of Japan , because the newspaper reports of an unmatchable weapon would cloud over his spectacular fire bombing of Japan ... In view of the thing that later he became the very Nuke guy once he got to command them all .

 

[Plotinus]

You know, Domen does post a lot about Poland, but it is rather jerkish to jump on him all the time. It's not like 2 or 5 posters own the site 5 times more than any individual poster.

@Domen: maybe present other stuff, not having to do with Poland, while still having your background in Poland. I mean all people here have a country and (i suppose) know more about that, however they don't refer to it when they post about issues not centered on it.

I agree with this. He gets way more flak than he deserves.

I disagree. I have never seen anyone spam, derail, and double-post more in my life. No matter the topic, he'll try to guide it towards Poland, the Jews, and why Germans are evil. And he routinely makes rambling posts thousands of words long with links to multiple documentaries and videos entirely in Polish that nobody can understand, with citations of books entirely in Polish that nobody can read. He makes these monstrous posts two or three in a row, usually in threads that have nothing to do with Poland. If anything, it's amazing that he hasn't been permabanned, considering all the rules he breaks on a daily basis.

I'm with Kyriakos and Joecoolyo on this.

Moderator Action: It's not against the rules to have particular topics of interest. And it's not against the rules to make tremendously long posts full of pictures and links.

If Domen wants to do so then that's his prerogative. As long as his posts are on the topic at hand - even if from the perspective of one particular country - that's not spam. As long as he doesn't nation-bash Germans or anyone else and as long as he's civil then he can do that. Just as it's everyone else's prerogative not to read his posts if they're not interested.

If he breaks the rules, report the post. And to reiterate, just making a long post about Poland isn't breaking the rules. Don't attack him in public.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

And I think Kyriakos' advice to Domen is wise. It may not be breaking the rules to post endlessly about Poland and nothing else, but it's annoying. It would be sensible to try not to do so.

 

[H4run]

I really like Domen post though I think it is very informative and funny, he do lately post a Poland video with English subtitles.

I think some of you guys need to calm down a little. And I feel nothing wrong for someone to post Poland all the time or someone to post what ever they are good at or interest at all the time, we mostly been associated by something that dear to us most. So everybody should be free to express it I guess.

As I'm a hugely an anti-nationalist individual, and I not consider myself belong to any particular nationality or culture, I don't really post on that so much, the things that really interest me is my religion, but because I don't have time to do argument all the time in the internet forum each time I post about my belief so I tend to avoid it and try to appreciate this forum in more positive and productive manner (this forum is not just a place for that, I do that in another place).

And if Domen dissapear I guess many of you will miss his funny and informative post that you consider as "spam". Without you realize I think many of you even enjoying it, I can see that.

 

[CaptainLost]

Sorry if I'm butting in on anything, but I figured this might be a good place to ask: I was reading about the T-34 just now and came across this site: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1
My question is, how accurate are these claims the author makes? I've heard little or nothing similar to these elsewhere, so I have no idea if they are realistic claims or not. Any thoughts?

 

[r16]

all might be very true without any qualifications but a very quick glimpse through it failed to get it right ; this reason behind Guderian demanding an immediate production of a clone , with assurances from Hitler to the same extent and German industry working for almost years to get the Panther with a whole lot of lies . Had Panther been worked up as a 45-50 ton tank from the beginning how would the Allies ever win the WW2 ? See , the T-34 still wins the WW2 ...

 

[Phrossack]

Why were the French and Spanish so determined to conquer Morocco in the late 19th-early 20th centuries? Was Morocco rich in resources or something? I mean, if Wiki's at all accurate about the Rif War, the French and Spanish were sending huge numbers of troops there for years and took horrible casualties.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe they also wanted to avoid having Britain get a base there.

 

[JohannaK]

why would Britain a base there having Gibraltar just a few miles away? They surely were busier elsewhere.

as for the Spanish reason, it's simple: COLONIES.

 

[Kyriakos]

Gibraltar is cool for having free access to the med at the time (and still), but it is too small to base an army there for other reasons (and Britain almost lost it during the American war for Independence).
France was already involved in empire-building in Africa, but i haven't read much on this issue

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I'm guessing, but it's really very close to Spain. Well, directly next door in the case of Ceuta and Melilla. In the late medieval period, the Portuguese elite seemed to spend half their lives in what we now call Morocco. Iif you've grown up thinking that you're superior to all those Oriental types, being the empire that used to rule the New World, etc., etc.?

I had a quick search on JStor and while there's nothing on French or Spanish motivations, there appears to be a vigorous debate over whether the Moroccans fought long and hard because of early stirrings of nationalism, tribal loyalty or because they were trying to introduce a semi-modernized Sharia (proto-al-Quaeda, if you like).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/163332

 

[Prospo]

Does the Turkish population of Cyprus predate the Greek, or are they settlers?

Or is it really complicated like the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs?

 

[Flying Pig]

The Greeks were in Cyprus before the Turks were in Turkey.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Are we talking before or after modern Greece came into existence?

 

[Mouthwash]

Did the word turkey precede the the usage of it for the Ottoman Empire or is it the other way around?

 

[say1988]

Turkey means the "land of the Turks" and the term "Turks" predates their arrival in Anatolia

 

[r16]

in this new Turkey where Turks are kinda not needed and people have to consider any possible backlash , it has been argued Anatolia was being called Turchia or similar in the 1200s .

 

[Kyriakos]

in this new Turkey where Turks are kinda not needed and people have to consider any possible backlash , it has been argued Anatolia was being called Turchia or similar in the 1200s .

Seems legit But why not just fall back on the theory that Homer was just a Turk called Omar? (love that one).